People punch that way precisely because they fail to ask, "why?" Traditional martial arts instruction does not encourage critical thinking. The idea is that the art was perfected at some point in the past, and the task today is to preserve the sacred tradition. People just assume that because those silly movements are in the art, they must have a practical purpose. They don't.

I think based on some of the responses/explanations that have described the reasons they do in fact have a practical purpose.

Maybe, I would suggest that depends on whom is teaching it. As it it sounds a little to clase to a generalization for my taste.

"the idea is that the art was perfected at some point in the past and the task today is to preserve the sacred tradition."

So you would walk into a MMA gym and or maybe a boxing gym and start telling the person teaching class that he was doing the upper cut or the right cross "wrong" because doing it that way is just some "sacred tradition?"

I think a distinction needs to be drawn between what is a "sacred tradition" and "this is how we do it." The former is often too much for me--but the latter often makes sense. It is why we have different arts--people do things in diffrent ways and some ways work better for some people.

"People just assume that just because those silly movements are in the are, they must have a practical purpose. They don't."

Again, not that such a statement is entirely wrong---its NOT. Just lacks some analysis. As an example:

1-How exactly would a newbie at pretty much anything know the difference between "silly movements" and something important?"

2-"Silly movements" kinda (IMO) depends on whom exactly your talking about--watched the last seasion of the Ultimate fighter and saw some people getting pretty badly messed up with techniques that would be pretty much sucicide for less skilled folks.

3-"They do't." Again, maybe, maybe not. I'd say that depends on exactly what you are talking about instead of blanket statement.

Edited by cxt (12/07/1109:54 AM)

_________________________
I did battle with ignorance today.......and ignorance won.
Huey.

Here is my go at fileboy2002's post. It's just my look on those statements.

Originally Posted By: fileboy2002

People punch that way precisely because they fail to ask, "why?"

That is generalisation. Practice needs theory, if you ask why you need to learn punching in a certain way and your instructor can't answer that then probably (s)he shouldn't be teaching. Or at least (s)he should try to find out the reason why.

Another generalisation. I practice TMA and we in our school are encouraged to be critical. Why do some things work and some don't? What am I doing and why am I doing it this way?

Originally Posted By: fileboy2002

The idea is that the art was perfected at some point in the past, and the task today is to preserve the sacred tradition.

Whose idea is this? We change constantly, we get older for instance. By the time that I'm 70 I might not be as physically fit as I am now at nearly 30. What do I do with that knowledge in regards to my training? I know that because I train in a certain school of karate that I am part of a tradition. That is because that is tradition that has certain methods of teaching. They paved the 'Way' so to speak with a curriculum and training aids like sparring etc. Why should I try to reinvent the wheel?You don't negate modern society aswell do you?

Originally Posted By: fileboy2002

People just assume that because those silly movements are in the art, they must have a practical purpose. They don't.

If you consider kihon-choku-zuki to be a silly movement, you have to start asking yourself why you are supposed to learn it that way... (first)They certainly have a 'practical' purpose. It's backed up by logic=theory.

I hesitated to post my answer to this question precisely because I knew I'd get responses like yours--"you're overgeneralizing," "my school isn't like that," "not all schools do that," blah, blah, blah.

I do not understand why some people cannot make a distinction between general statements and categorical ones. Of course I don't mean ALL TMA schools! Of course there are exceptions.

I wish every conversation of this kind didn't get bogged down in endless demands that everything said be so minutely qualified. Can't we just understand that we are speaking generally and that exceptions exist without having to do this every single time?

However I don't think it's limited to TMA, I think it's just easier to get worse results in TMA because there are so many layers that are totally useless if you are not instructed in what they are for, and they are just done as busywork "just because". If it would be like if someone taught you how to hit a speedbag and never explained how to properly do it, or what it is supposed to accomplish.

This is what you see with a ton of mainstream TKD and Karate, and you are right that the results aren't pretty.

Quote:

Can't we just understand that we are speaking generally and that exceptions exist without having to do this every single time?

Not really, because the context of the thread is the usefulness of this method of punching, and that is only possible for people who understand what it is for in the first place. Clearly if someone goes to a "just because" school, the question of usefulness is already answered!

@ Zach_Zinn:"Just because" school, the 'new' flavour next to McDojo. I agree that many seem to forget those questions; what's the purpose, why; when they enter a dojo.

@Fileboy2002:Well I didn't mean to address you personally. But in the end you made those generalised statements. I myself make mistakes in that direction also, but I try not to generelise. No bad intentions however! It raised some good angles to the discussion I think.

Next to politics in organisations I think these thoughts about the techniques, methods and principles bihind them, have led to the developement of different styles and offshouts etc.

Realising the purpose of or the logic behind certain techniques and methods can lead to great 'Aha-Erlebnisse' insights in your chosen path in the martial arts. It all starts with questions.

I'ld like to hear what the views of the OP are after analysing the different views offered in this thread. (And the ones on the other forums. )

BTW I never use(d) that many smilies in one post. There must e a first time for some things.

And I can't understand why people can't take the time to simply say "in general" when they post statements that are, by any basic standard, phrased/framed in a provocitive manner.

I also took the time to provide an example/question/posit/suggestion on one mans "sacred tradition" and "silly" techniques, I belive the terms were---might be viewed very differently from a slightly different angle/perspective.

I'm all for discussion, lets have one.

_________________________
I did battle with ignorance today.......and ignorance won.
Huey.

The problem with always adding qualifiers (e.g. "in general," "in many cases," "broadly speaking") isn't that it takes to much time to write, but that it makes prose clunky and tedious. Littering your writing with endless qualifying phrases makes it annoying as hell to read.

As far as the example, I think it is case of apples and oranges. We don't need to speculate about whether uppercuts and right crosses are effective--we KNOW they are. The reason we know is because they are constantly tested under realistic conditions. This is not the case with many (NOT ALL!!!!) TMA techniques because, generally speaking (THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS!!!) they are not testing under anything even vaguely approaching realistic conditions.

I'd be willing to bet that there are MORE people doing untested right crosses and uppercuts via stuff like 'cardio kickboxing' and whatnot than there are people doing untested TMA techniques.

If your litmus test is simply the number of people testing it or not, then TMA is probably actually tested more often, cardio martial arts classes involving no actual martial arts training are huge. You cannot in good conscience argue that the right cross of a soccer mom is the same as a right cross of a real boxer, so also it is not appropriate to argue that the TMA punch of someone who doesn't suck is the same as someone who has no idea what they are doing.

Secondly, taking the punching form we are talking about and asking someone to 'apply it for real' is like asking someone to apply speedbag training in a dynamic environment, while they certainly do, it obviously isn't in the exact manner as pummelling on a speedbag.

It is a way of training and testing certain habits, not a one to one skill you are going to duplicate in a dynamic situation..just like a speedbag.